Department of Energy Sunshot Initiative

California Energy Commission shows new nuke electric $0.17-0.34kwh + up to $3.40kwh for insurance

...The detailed study considered three forms of ownership: merchant plant, investor-owned utility, and publicly owned utility. Merchant plants are built to serve deregulated markets and assume a high degree of market risk. They may not be able to sell all their electricity at any one time if their price is too high. Investor-owned utilities are the traditional private companies serving a regulated market. In California, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison are investor-owned. Publicly owned utilities are municipal utilities, like SMUD. Publicly owned utilities pay fewer taxes and have access to lower cost financing than either investor-owned utilities or merchant plants.

The CEC's 186-page report, "Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation" , found that a 1,000-megawatt pressurized water reactor would generate electricity in 2018 from as little as $0.17 per kilowatt-hour to as much as $0.34 per kilowatt-hour. These results are startling: Most renewable technologies today, even solar photovoltaics (PV), generate electricity for less than that. Only a municipal utility could generate nuclear electricity for less than the cost of solar PV.

Currently, Germany pays between $0.31 and $0.41 per kilowatt-hour for electricity from solar PV, which means that the cost of solar-generated electricity today is equivalent to the cost estimated by the CEC for a nuclear plant beginning operation in 2018. And all observers, even critics, expect the cost of solar PV to continue declining during the next decade.

And what about insurance?

In an unrelated study for the German Renewable Energy Association, consultants found that nuclear reactors are effectively uninsurable. The 157-page report by Versicherungsforen Leipzig estimated that the premium necessary to insure a nuclear reactor from accident would cost from $0.20 per kilowatt-hour to a staggering $3.40 per kilowatt-hour...

Solar power in Germany has been growing considerably due to the country's feed-in tariff which was introduced by the German Renewable Energy Act. The FiT costs 1 billion euros per month to subsidize new solar installations and the cost is spread across all rate-payers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

The DOE SunShot Initiative is a collaborative national initiative to make solar energy technologies cost-competitive with other forms of energy by reducing the cost of solar energy systems by about 75% before 2020.

"A dust layer of one-seventh of an ounce per square yard decreases solar power conversion by 40 percent," said Malay Mazumder, PhD

The fact that “the wind doesn’t always blow” is often used to suggest the need for dedicated energy storage to handle fluctuations in the generation of wind power. Such viewpoints, however, ignore the realities of both grid operation and the performance of a large, spatially diverse wind-generation resource. Historically, all other variation (for example, that due to system loads, generation-commitment and dispatch changes, and network topology changes) has been handled systemically. This is because the diversity of need leads to much lower costs when variability is aggregated before being balanced.

Storage is ... operated to maximize the economic benefit to an entire system. Storage is nearly always beneficial to the grid, but this benefit must be weighed against its cost. With more than 26 GW of wind power currently operating in the United States and more than 65 GW of wind energy operating in Europe (as of the date of this writing), no additional storage has been added to the systems to balance wind. Storage has value in a system without wind, which is the reason why about 20 GW of pumped hydro storage was built in the United States and 100 GW was built worldwide, decades before wind and solar energy were considered as viable electricity generation technologies. Additional wind could increase the value of energy storage in the grid as a whole, but storage would continue to provide its services to the grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in the net demand, not just wind.

As an example, consider Figure 7 below, which is based on a simplified example of a dispatch model that approximates the western United States. All numerical values are illustrative only, and the storage analysis is based on a hypothetical storage facility that is limited to 10% of the peak load and 168 hours of energy. The ability of the system to integrate large penetrations of wind depends heavily on the mix of other generation resources. Storage is an example of a flexible resource, and storage has economic value to the system even without any wind energy. As wind is added to the system in increasing amounts, the value of storage will increase. With no wind, storage has a value of more than US$1,000/kW, indicating that a storage device that costs less would provide economic value to the system. As wind penetration increases, so does the value of storage, eventually reaching approximately US$1,600/kW. In this example system, the generation mix is similar to what is found today in many parts of the United States. In such a system with high wind penetration, the value of storage is somewhat greater because the economic dispatch will result in putting low-variable-cost units (e.g., coal or nuclear) on the margin (and setting the market-clearing price) much more often than it would have without the wind. More frequent periods with lower prices offers a bigger price spread and more opportunities for arbitrage, increasing the value of storage.

In a system with less base load and more flexible generation, the value of storage is relatively insensitive to the wind penetration. Figure 8 shows that storage still has value with no wind on the system, but there is a very slight increase in the value of storage even at a wind-penetration rate of 40% (energy). An across-the-board decrease in market prices the incentives for a unit with high fixed costs and low variable costs (e.g., coal or nuclear) to be built in the first place. This means that in a high-wind future, fewer low-variable-cost units will be built. This reduces the amount of time that low-variable-cost units are on the margin and also reduces the value of storage relative to the “near-term” value with the same amount of wind.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.